Is God proven in Theism, for there is dogma of His Existence?

[questfortruth]

Atheism is about belief or, specifically, what you don't believe.

An atheist doesn't believe in any gods.​

Agnosticism is about knowledge or, specifically, about what you don't know.

An agnostic doesn't know if any gods exist or not.
source​

.​

.

Objection: "Correction, most atheists don't say god is nonexistent, but that there's insufficient reason to believe he exists. Come up with sufficient evidence for god's existence and these atheists will change their minds and believe he exists. P.S. Atheism is about belief or, specifically, what you don't believe. An atheist doesn't believe in any gods. Agnosticism is about knowledge or, specifically, about what you don't know. An agnostic doesn't know if any gods exist or not."

That is agnosticism, not atheism. Stop juggle with words: if a human says something like "I believe in no God, I have lack of belief in God, I believe, that there is no God; or there is no God", he is simply an atheist, who is possessed by Non-existent god. If a human says: "there is no sufficient reason to believe, that God exists, therefore, I believe in no God", he is an atheist. If a human says: "there is no sufficient reason to believe, that God exists, therefore, I do not know if there is God", he is an agnostic.

 

[viole]

I would recommend to study the theisms. If you allow, I would give you some logical videos of leading theists (ask in PM).

I like Apollo, a lot. Is that a viable option?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

that is agnosticism, not atheism.. Let me add:
To prove something means to demonstrate, that the God agrees with you, as the knowledge of a human is the knowledge, which holds his God. The God of Knowledge. To prove God to God is easy; and so, from the fact that God is proven for theists, and for atheists the God is not debunked, it follows that God is proven for atheists as well.

I guess that would work to prove the existence of little trolls and elves, too. For instance, I was never able to debunk them, either, while my good friends in Iceland claim knowledge that they exist.

Ciao

- viole

 

[questfortruth]

Correction, Most atheists don't say god is nonexistent, but that there's insufficient reason to believe he exists. Come up with sufficient evidence for god's existence and these atheists will change their minds and believe he exists.

.

Stop juggle with words: "we do not know, that there is no God, we just do not believe, that there is God." You have no idea what faith and belief is, because you are non-believer.

 

[questfortruth]

I guess that would work to prove the existence of little trolls and elves, too. For instance, I was never able to debunk them, either, while my good friends in Iceland claim knowledge that they exist.

Ciao

- viole

Yes, they exist. Because the devil is making them.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Objection: "the Buddhists have proven the transmigration of souls, but the Christians have not debunked it. So, it has been proven for the Christians as well?"

We are talking about God, not about the transmigration of souls. Do not change the subject. At first step one must prove the theism by separation of it from atheism, and only then one must discover which theistic ideas are true. Do not mix these two steps together!

As far as I can tell, the sample objection you so glibly included and then dismissed as if you had answered to it (which you DIDN'T), is perfectly cogent and should show you exactly why the application of your own "God exists for theists, and atheists can't debunk, so God exists" statement is completely fallacious, ridiculous, and standing at the very outer rim on the border of sanity.

There is only a "subject change" in order to show you how easily you would object to ideas you don't subscribe to being presented in the EXACT SAME format and using the EXACT SAME "proof" as you have given here for God's existence. This whole OP is an abject failure you're parading around as if it were dressed in fine clothes. There will never be any sort of prize offered for words as worthless as these. Or I should say, if there ever is, then it is on that day that we should mark humanity as a doomed species.

 

[questfortruth]

your own "God exists for theists, and atheists can't debunk, so God exists" statement is completely fallacious, ridiculous, and standing at the very outer rim on the border of sanity.

So, it might strike then somebody. It might work its purpose then.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So, it might strike then somebody. It might work its purpose then.

And what is its purpose? To dupe people into believing? To convince others that you possess knowledge and understanding that you do not? To see how well you can find out who is not paying attention or isn't sharp enough to see through the sham you are presenting? Those are the only things I can plausibly accept as goals of this type of argumentation you have presented. And they are not, at all, admirable ones.

 

[QuestioningMind]

To prove something means to demonstrate, that the God agrees with you, as the knowledge of a human is the knowledge, which holds his God. The God of Knowledge. To prove God to God is easy; and so, from the fact that God is proven for theists, and for atheists the God is not debunked, it follows that God is proven for atheists as well.

As demonstration, that Christian people have proven own God, look up the verses: 1 Corinthians 15:34, Acts 1:3, 1 Corinthians 13:2 and the Christian Theology with the following theorem:

Thesis: Omniscient One exists.
Consequence: He knows that the Omniscient One exists.
Conclusion: in the "treasure chest" of knowledge there is information that the Omniscient One exists.

Objection: "the Buddhists have proven the transmigration of souls, but the Christians have not debunked it. So, it has been proven for the Christians as well?"

We are talking about God, not about the transmigration of souls. Do not change the subject. At first step one must prove the theism by separation of it from atheism, and only then one must discover which theistic ideas are true. Do not mix these two steps together!

Objection: "Thousands of gods in the world. Which of them do actually exist?"

There is only the Existing God; for God is the name, and so the rest ones are idols that do not actually exist. Agnosticism (as a "scientific scepticism" in God's existence) is nothing more than a logical mistake when the Existing God and the Non-existent idol (satan and his beloved invention - atheism) are taken for one person, cf. Matthew 6:24. Since there is the Existing God and the non-existent god, then the Existing God really exists. From this theory comes out, that atheists are so sure that there is no god, because they have an idol in their minds that does not exist.

Objection: "Atheists do not believe in their non-existent idol."

Yes, because he does not exist! The Absolute Nothingness is taken for the idol. They are just the most advanced pagans. On Earth, there are only three basic nations in the eyes of Christian God: Jews, Christians, and Gentiles.

Finally, if the God of Knowledge is not perfectly 100% proven, then there can not be any knowledge or proof, even physical or mathematical. Because there is no Absolute Judge what is wrong and what is right, even in scientific sense. Therefore, He would have no right to burn atheists and sinners after the Judgement Day. Conclusion: the God is Spirit of Truth Himself.

The fact that the invisible magical dragon that lives in my garage is proven to ME and for YOU this invisible magical dragon is not debunked, it follows that you also have proof my my invisible magical dragon.

By golly the logic is INDISPUTABLE!

 

[Skwim]

Stop juggle with words: "we do not know, that there is no God, we just do not believe, that there is God." You have no idea what faith and belief is, because you are non-believer.

Now that's funny. As if religious faith and belief are the only kinds of faith and belief in the world. In any case, can I likewise say that you don't know what atheism is because you're a theist? Of course I can because you've set up the criterion, silly as it is.


.

 

[questfortruth]

The fact that the invisible magical dragon that lives in my garage is proven to ME and for YOU this invisible magical dragon is not debunked, it follows that you also have proof my my invisible magical dragon.

By golly the logic is INDISPUTABLE!

You are making the common and most spread among the un-believers logical fallacy. You are mixing two steps to the Faith. These steps are: 1. to separate atheism from theism, 2. find out which theistic ideas are true. Your magical dragon is simply example of paganism, shamanism.

 

[questfortruth]

And what is its purpose? To dupe people into believing? To convince others that you possess knowledge and understanding that you do not? To see how well you can find out who is not paying attention or isn't sharp enough to see through the sham you are presenting? Those are the only things I can plausibly accept as goals of this type of argumentation you have presented. And they are not, at all, admirable ones.

Dr. Niels Bohr (founder of Quantum Mechanics) jokingly remarked to a student that his theory was crazy, but not crazy enough to be true.

 

[questfortruth]

Now that's funny. As if religious faith and belief are the only kinds of faith and belief in the world. In any case, can I likewise say that you don't know what atheism is because you're a theist? Of course I can because you've set up the criterion, silly as it is. .

Because there is Absolutely Nothing in common between God and satan, there are no common notions nor common definitions between theism and atheism: "between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us" Luke 16:26. That is why it is not possible to convert atheist by logic: he does not understands you, see the Lord Jesus Christ has problem with the hidden atheism as well: "Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:43-44.

 

[QuestioningMind]

You are making the common and most spread among the un-believers logical fallacy. You are mixing two steps to the Faith. These steps are: 1. to separate atheism from theism, 2. find out which theistic ideas are true. Your magical dragon is simply example of paganism, shamanism.

Nope. 1. If your logic works for your proposed god being then it works just as reliably for my proposed magical dragon. 2. If your logic doesn't work for my proposed magical dragon, then it also doesn't work for your proposed god being.

Here's a hint: It's #2... your 'logic' isn't the least bit logical.

 

[Skwim]

Because there is Absolutely Nothing in common between God and satan,

Sure there is.
Both god and Satan

are supernatural beings
have supernatural powers
are interested in seeing that humans to do their will
are closely related (god created Satan)
have a close bond (god loves Satan enough to let him mess around with humans without repercussions)​

there are no common notions nor common definitions between theism and atheism:

Sure there is.
Both theism and atheism

deal with the concept of god
address the issue of god's existence
​

"between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us" Luke 16:26. That is why it is not possible to convert atheist by logic: he does not understands you, see the Lord Jesus Christ has problem with the hidden atheism as well: "Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:43-44.

Gibberish is not impressive or productive.

.

 

[blü 2]

To prove something means to demonstrate, that the God agrees with you, as the knowledge of a human is the knowledge, which holds his God. The God of Knowledge. To prove God to God is easy; and so, from the fact that God is proven for theists, and for atheists the God is not debunked, it follows that God is proven for atheists as well.

As demonstration, that Christian people have proven own God, look up the verses: 1 Corinthians 15:34, Acts 1:3, 1 Corinthians 13:2 and the Christian Theology with the following theorem:

Thesis: Omniscient One exists.
Consequence: He knows that the Omniscient One exists.
Conclusion: in the "treasure chest" of knowledge there is information that the Omniscient One exists.

You seem to have left quite a bit out.

P1: Omniscience is the state of knowing at the one time everything that is capable of being known.
P2: A sentient being is capable of being omniscient.
P3: The existence of a sentient being X who is omniscient is something capable of being known.
P4: An omniscient being X exists.
C: Therefore X knows that X exists.

I think the conclusion is valid. The problem is providing a satisfactory demonstration of the truth of each of the premises.

What is your demonstration of P2?

And with P3, what test will tell you whether any X is in fact omniscient or not?

Indeed, how does God know there's nothing [he] doesn't know? What test does [he] use?

 

[Bear Wild]

Because there is Absolutely Nothing in common between God and satan, there are no common notions nor common definitions between theism and atheism: "between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us" Luke 16:26. That is why it is not possible to convert atheist by logic: he does not understands you, see the Lord Jesus Christ has problem with the hidden atheism as well: "Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies." John 8:43-44.

Ok I cant resist these arguments.
1. Is god more powerful, equal or less powerful than Satan?
2. Is god unable to get rid of Satan or to they in reality like, or tolerate each other?
3. Does god keep Satan around to make god look good?
4. Have you ever actually met Satan or god in person?

 

[amatuerscholar]

To prove something means to demonstrate, that the God agrees with you, as the knowledge of a human is the knowledge, which holds his God. The God of Knowledge. To prove God to God is easy; and so, from the fact that God is proven for theists, and for atheists the God is not debunked, it follows that God is proven for atheists as well......

I'm going back to the beginning because I think there is an easy rebuttal to this. You're argument fails before it ever gets off as you have redefined the terminology, and in so doing, you have created logical fallacy, which is circular reasoning here.

You're staring from the conclusion, which is God exists. You then work back from there which doesn't work. You then make up a definition for proof that no one is agreeing to because it already rests on a conclusion, which is not what proof is.

We can see this with your theorem. Having a thesis that God exists doesn't lead to the consequence that one knows God exists and thus there must be evidence that God exists. You can have the thesis that God exists, but then you have to demonstrate that God exists. You need to formulate an argument, and there are a number of arguments that you can go to; some being better than others. But you can't leap to the consequence you do because us believing God exists, and "knowing" God exists doesn't mean God exists. It could mean we are mistaken. Just substitute unicorn for God and you will see why.

Since you start your entire argument on a false premise, nothing else in that argument really stands up because it all relies on something you haven't shown. So it becomes really, if this is true, and I haven't shown that it's true but I want it to be true, then this is also true. But it's not a real argument.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

To prove something means to demonstrate, that the God agrees with you, as the knowledge of a human is the knowledge, which holds his God. The God of Knowledge. To prove God to God is easy; and so, from the fact that God is proven for theists, and for atheists the God is not debunked, it follows that God is proven for atheists as well.

Weird logic you got there.
Here's the same reasoning and logic applied, but with "god", "theists" and "atheists" replaced by other things.


To prove something means to demonstrate, that the Lord Xenu agrees with you, as the knowledge of a human is the knowledge, which holds his Lord Xenu. The Lord Xenu of Knowledge. To prove Lord Xenu to Lord Xenu is easy; and so, from the fact that Lord Xenu is proven for scientologists, and for non-scientologists the Lord Xenu is not debunked, it follows that Lord Xenu is proven for non-scientologists as well.


So really, what you are saying there is the following
- there are people that believe X is real and consider it sufficiently proven
- there are people that don't believe X is real and can't disprove X since X is unfalsifiable
- therefor X should be considered sufficiently proven for all


So really, find ANY person that believes an unfalsifiable claim hard enough and you can say the exact same thing about that person's beliefs as you do about yours - INCLUDING beliefs that are in contradiction to yours.


Had you thought this through a bit while stepping out of your comfort zone bubble that is your religion, you might have noticed how utterly flawed this "logic" was.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Objection: "Correction, most atheists don't say god is nonexistent, but that there's insufficient reason to believe he exists. Come up with sufficient evidence for god's existence and these atheists will change their minds and believe he exists. P.S. Atheism is about belief or, specifically, what you don't believe. An atheist doesn't believe in any gods. Agnosticism is about knowledge or, specifically, about what you don't know. An agnostic doesn't know if any gods exist or not."

That is agnosticism, not atheism.

I think it's funny how you quote it correct and then draw the wrong conclusion.

It is right there in the quote: atheism is about belief, not about knowledge. Agnosticism is about knowledge, not about belief.

Thus they are different answers to different questions. Not mutually exclusive positions on a single question.
If anything, one is a qualifier of the other.

Hi, I'm an agnostic atheist.

Stop juggle with words: if a human says something like "I believe in no God, I have lack of belief in God, I believe, that there is no God; or there is no God",

You're mixing up two different things here.

The statement "I don't believe god exists"
IS NOT THE SAME as saying "I believe no god exists".

The sooner you learn the difference between these two statements, the better.

. If a human says: "there is no sufficient reason to believe, that God exists, therefore, I believe in no God", he is an atheist. If a human says: "there is no sufficient reason to believe, that God exists, therefore, I do not know if there is God", he is an agnostic.

Belief and knowledge are not the same thing either.
You can believe while knowing and believe without knowing or not believe while not knowing.

Again, these aren't mutually exclusive things.